Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > SCARLETS GENERAL
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Scarlets wales women.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Scarlets wales women.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
Dic Penderyn View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 03 November 2019
Location: Llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 1165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dic Penderyn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 November 2021 at 7:33pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

If you want the women’s game to have a proper seat at the table them you must be prepared cut (x..y…z) in order to do so.

My point on separate funding streams is to try to avoid those sort of binary outcomes really?

Call it what you will ( diversity on steroids etc, and my post covers my ambivalence on that)
Part) but the reality is that funding to support the women’s game from the private sector is growing, whilst for the men’s game it’s flatlining ( or going down as in the case of the O2 for England).
The pandemic has its part to play in the overall spend of course.

I’m just suggesting that we can as a region, or a WRU Board, try to explore the funding available ( or not as the case may be).



I don’t think it’s “diversity on steroids” and I completely agree there’s both growth of interest and potential in the women’s game. 

As many pundits have pointed out the real opportunity for women’s rugby is it doesn’t have to be tied to the men’s game. E.g. a women’s Lions wouldn’t and shouldn’t tour Aus/SA and would probably be better off playing vs France, NZ, the USA or Canada - with al sorts of golden opportunities in North America. 

I think your point about private investment is interesting but I tend to think Dic’s point proves my point about trade offs no? The money previously just went to RFU to spend on what they like, and now it has to be equally spent between Men’s and Womens rugby, so there’s still only £10m in the pot it’s just being put in one place instead of another.

If the WRU had a £10m Cazoo deal - it could give £5m of that to women’s rugby and return £0 back off that over the next 10 years. They may well think that’s worthwhile, but they could also divvy up that money in another way I.e. giving £1m to women’s rugby and £4m to regional teams. Given we at least we turned a profit in the year before covid it could be suggested we’d be a better investment. 

Again, I’m really hopeful about the women’s game but I resent people throwing cheap shots at people expressing legitimate opinions.

I don't think my "on steroids"point was well made-mea culpa.In the quoted Mastercard article,player numbers are exagerated-there seems to be plenty of evidence and debate in that respect.Thus Mastercard have chosen to sponsor a sport that is niche/minority in the context of women's sport-this can be presented as ultra inclusive,i.e "on steroids".By avoiding the sponsorship of (e.g)women's football,which is genuinely huge and genuinely growing,they are choosing the cheaper option.......canny/cynical stuff.


Edited by Dic Penderyn - 16 November 2021 at 7:51pm
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Wil Chips View Drop Down
Rambler
Rambler
Avatar

Joined: 23 August 2009
Location: Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 46516
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wil Chips Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 November 2021 at 7:12am
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

If you want the women’s game to have a proper seat at the table them you must be prepared cut (x..y…z) in order to do so.

My point on separate funding streams is to try to avoid those sort of binary outcomes really?

Call it what you will ( diversity on steroids etc, and my post covers my ambivalence on that)
Part) but the reality is that funding to support the women’s game from the private sector is growing, whilst for the men’s game it’s flatlining ( or going down as in the case of the O2 for England).
The pandemic has its part to play in the overall spend of course.

I’m just suggesting that we can as a region, or a WRU Board, try to explore the funding available ( or not as the case may be).




I don’t think it’s “diversity on steroids” and I completely agree there’s both growth of interest and potential in the women’s game. 

As many pundits have pointed out the real opportunity for women’s rugby is it doesn’t have to be tied to the men’s game. E.g. a women’s Lions wouldn’t and shouldn’t tour Aus/SA and would probably be better off playing vs France, NZ, the USA or Canada - with al sorts of golden opportunities in North America. 

I think your point about private investment is interesting but I tend to think Dic’s point proves my point about trade offs no? The money previously just went to RFU to spend on what they like, and now it has to be equally spent between Men’s and Womens rugby, so there’s still only £10m in the pot it’s just being put in one place instead of another.

If the WRU had a £10m Cazoo deal - it could give £5m of that to women’s rugby and return £0 back off that over the next 10 years. They may well think that’s worthwhile, but they could also divvy up that money in another way I.e. giving £1m to women’s rugby and £4m to regional teams. Given we at least we turned a profit in the year before covid it could be suggested we’d be a better investment. 

Again, I’m really hopeful about the women’s game but I resent people throwing cheap shots at people expressing legitimate opinions.


Very fair last point.


I think O2 have probably been clever in the timing of the deal extension ( right in the middle of the pandemic a year ago, when multiple sponsors were either shedding their load, or in same cases closing it down all together). They then added in the equality of funding piece too...I doubt that was something the RFU requested.


I suggest 7.5mg gbp a year for 5 years, in that climate, was something they just couldn't turn down (in my view, and backed up by commentary I've read from the RFU).

What I would say is this shirt sponsorship money just gets 'added to the RFU's revenue pot' so as the they were already funding the women's pro game and Premier 15 league from that pot (not sure how much that would be, but with 28 pro contracted players in England and a full calendar of league and international games in 2021 to support, I can imagine it could quite easily come to the 50% number of 7.5m from the O2 pot).
So in fact no net loss of allocation of gbp to the men's game in that in theory.
I'd imagine all the RFU need to do is show at least 3.75m gbp allocated to support the women's game in their accounts, and that's the box ticked.

I'm not really debating against where the best value for money/return for the WRU is in the sport today...that's obviously in pursuit of games that fill stadia and generate max income for the governing body...but where the source of new funding originates from is clearly resetting, and the *WRU are, as ever, the last of the home nations to recognize it.

*We rank lower than Spain in the 15 a side world rankings, we put out a match day 23 that had only 1 Welsh based player in it during the last 6 nations, and lost to a combined score of 98-0 in our pool matches to France and Ireland. We are unable to play our best player last weekend as she has had to take a GB 7's contract to supplement her existence to the sport, and so was unavailable. We don't have a development or age grade pathway for the women's game in Wales.

That's poor governance, and needs a swift transformation (contracts is a baby step in reality) if it's really going to attract the right investment.







Edited by Wil Chips - 17 November 2021 at 7:14am
Back to Top
dyniol53 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 08 April 2018
Location: Llundain
Status: Offline
Points: 1466
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dyniol53 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 November 2021 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

If you want the women’s game to have a proper seat at the table them you must be prepared cut (x..y…z) in order to do so.

My point on separate funding streams is to try to avoid those sort of binary outcomes really?



I think your point about private investment is interesting but I tend to think Dic’s point proves my point about trade offs no? The money previously just went to RFU to spend on what they like, and now it has to be equally spent between Men’s and Womens rugby, so there’s still only £10m in the pot it’s just being put in one place instead of another.



Very fair last point.

I think O2 have probably been clever in the timing of the deal extension ( right in the middle of the pandemic a year ago, when multiple sponsors were either shedding their load, or in same cases closing it down all together). They then added in the equality of funding piece too...I doubt that was something the RFU requested.

I suggest 7.5mg gbp a year for 5 years, in that climate, was something they just couldn't turn down (in my view, and backed up by commentary I've read from the RFU).

What I would say is this shirt sponsorship money just gets 'added to the RFU's revenue pot' so as the they were already funding the women's pro game and Premier 15 league from that pot (not sure how much that would be, but with 28 pro contracted players in England and a full calendar of league and international games in 2021 to support, I can imagine it could quite easily come to the 50% number of 7.5m from the O2 pot).
So in fact no net loss of allocation of gbp to the men's game in that in theory.
I'd imagine all the RFU need to do is show at least 3.75m gbp allocated to support the women's game in their accounts, and that's the box ticked.

I'm not really debating against where the best value for money/return for the WRU is in the sport today...that's obviously in pursuit of games that fill stadia and generate max income for the governing body...but where the source of new funding originates from is clearly resetting, and the *WRU are, as ever, the last of the home nations to recognize it.

That's poor governance, and needs a swift transformation (contracts is a baby step in reality) if it's really going to attract the right investment.


I think is all good points Wil. 

The thing about the corporates is that fundamentally they are paying for reach, and reach is delivered by bums on seats and eyes on tellys. What it looks like O2 have done is got a £10m deal where they can also apply a Corporate Social Responsibility angle to by saying they’re promoting womens rugby. That’s all good but what this isn’t an example of is women’s rugby bringing in money to the game, it’s the same pie chopped up differently. 

The thing is, the women’s game may well deliver bums on seats and eyes on tellys as it seems to with France and England - so in 5 years time it may well be revenue generating, and by not investing in it now the WRU might well miss out on that revenue in 5 years time.

As you say it’s baby steps atm but it’s better than nothing - I wouldn’t go as far as realwest in saying “they should be grateful” haha but there has to be an acknowledgement money doesn’t fall out of the air, and in Wales in particular we have much fewer magic money trees lying around than in Ireland and England to invest in speculative projects.
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 13228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 November 2021 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

If you want the women’s game to have a proper seat at the table them you must be prepared cut (x..y…z) in order to do so.

My point on separate funding streams is to try to avoid those sort of binary outcomes really?



I think your point about private investment is interesting but I tend to think Dic’s point proves my point about trade offs no? The money previously just went to RFU to spend on what they like, and now it has to be equally spent between Men’s and Womens rugby, so there’s still only £10m in the pot it’s just being put in one place instead of another.



Very fair last point.

I think O2 have probably been clever in the timing of the deal extension ( right in the middle of the pandemic a year ago, when multiple sponsors were either shedding their load, or in same cases closing it down all together). They then added in the equality of funding piece too...I doubt that was something the RFU requested.

I suggest 7.5mg gbp a year for 5 years, in that climate, was something they just couldn't turn down (in my view, and backed up by commentary I've read from the RFU).

What I would say is this shirt sponsorship money just gets 'added to the RFU's revenue pot' so as the they were already funding the women's pro game and Premier 15 league from that pot (not sure how much that would be, but with 28 pro contracted players in England and a full calendar of league and international games in 2021 to support, I can imagine it could quite easily come to the 50% number of 7.5m from the O2 pot).
So in fact no net loss of allocation of gbp to the men's game in that in theory.
I'd imagine all the RFU need to do is show at least 3.75m gbp allocated to support the women's game in their accounts, and that's the box ticked.

I'm not really debating against where the best value for money/return for the WRU is in the sport today...that's obviously in pursuit of games that fill stadia and generate max income for the governing body...but where the source of new funding originates from is clearly resetting, and the *WRU are, as ever, the last of the home nations to recognize it.

That's poor governance, and needs a swift transformation (contracts is a baby step in reality) if it's really going to attract the right investment.


I think is all good points Wil. 

The thing about the corporates is that fundamentally they are paying for reach, and reach is delivered by bums on seats and eyes on tellys. What it looks like O2 have done is got a £10m deal where they can also apply a Corporate Social Responsibility angle to by saying they’re promoting womens rugby. That’s all good but what this isn’t an example of is women’s rugby bringing in money to the game, it’s the same pie chopped up differently. 

The thing is, the women’s game may well deliver bums on seats and eyes on tellys as it seems to with France and England - so in 5 years time it may well be revenue generating, and by not investing in it now the WRU might well miss out on that revenue in 5 years time.

As you say it’s baby steps atm but it’s better than nothing - I wouldn’t go as far as realwest in saying “they should be grateful” haha but there has to be an acknowledgement money doesn’t fall out of the air, and in Wales in particular we have much fewer magic money trees lying around than in Ireland and England to invest in speculative projects.

Interesting debate which I am enjoying. One comment really is why would Ireland appear to have far more corporate/individual backers than Wales. England I get but Ireland & Wales???? Perhaps our auditor in chief - Kid A could shed some light on this. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.